How do you know when a politician is lying? When he opens his mouth and speaks - so goes the old joke, but one increasingly becoming true. A growing number of people, with whom I come into contact, are becoming convinced that the people are not being told the truth on any number of subjects, amongst which are Defence, HS2, the EU, Immigration and 'Bail-outs', to quote some examples. Politicians fervently wish to be 'liked'; to be respected, yet while they continue the practice of 'shaving the truth' or indulging in 'spin' they do themselves no favours and only heighten the distrust the public has for them.
Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, posts on what he calls the ANTI section of the electorate - those who feel Angry, Neglected; who are Traditionalists and concerned about Immigration - and he links to an article which appears in the Mail, under his name. Let us consider three of these topics separately, the fourth being part of the third:
Angry: It is no wonder the public feel angry with the politicians of the Lib/Lab/Con when all three in fact present the same policies but use different words - and having given a statement of intent in their respective manifestos, promptly break that 'pledge'. Yesterday I posted twice on comments made by John Major during a speech he gave at the Churchill Institute, Cambridge; and today the Telegraph quotes that speech in full. Major has called for the Coalition to be made a permanent arrangement, in other words that a new political party be formed: the Liberal Conservative Party. Returning to the point made earlier - that the Lib/Lab/Con are the same, Richard North makes a pertinent observation in this post, when he says:
"....perhaps Major has a point. The not-the-Tory-Party and the Lib-Dims should combine permanently, but they should go further and take in the Labour Party as well. There is nothing between them of any significance. Then, possibly, we would have the political space to develop a real opposition party, with a manifesto that includes getting out of the EU. And I suspect it would not remain in opposition very long."
The real thinking of Major can be discovered if one delves into what he actually said. Consider:
"Many Tories and Liberals are hostile – or, at least, agnostic – to the Coalition. I approve of it. In present circumstances, it has many attractions: not least that two parties are more likely to enjoy a tolerant electorate for policies that are painful.........The Conservative Party is, itself, a coalition: a broad church that is more a way of life than an ideology.To win elections it must attract support from the centre and, where it can, from the centre-left. If it falls into schism, it repels electors. Such internecine warfare scarred my own premiership, and the leadership in Opposition of my three immediate successors. When the Conservative Party shrinks into itself, it shrivels into un-electability, as it did for some years after 1997 "
That Major is of the 'centre-left' can no longer be in doubt. His assertion that only the Coalition can enjoy a 'tolerant electorate' is double-speak in the extreme. Any one party can, by misrepresentation of the truth; by manipulating the news media; by presenting manufactured statistics to further its own ends, can enjoy a tolerant electorate - a practice that has been all too obvious for decades.
Neglected: Once again it is all too obvious that the electorate feel neglected. The Lib/Lab/Con present a picture that they - and only they - have a divine right to govern; that only they know what is good for the country and dismiss dissenting voices as those of 'loonies and fruitcakes'. They have lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to represent the views of their constituents and in so doing now act in a dictatorial manner. To take one example and that of EU membership. We are continually told that membership is beneficial and necessary, yet not one government during the past decades has been prepared to prove this assertion by means of a cost/benefit analysis. We are told that it would be nigh on difficult, almost impossible, to withdraw our membership of the EU; that Britain could not survive in the world as an independent, self-governing nation, yet I am reminded of some words spoken by Enoch Powell at the Conservative party conference in October 1968:
"Too often today people are ready to tell us: 'This is not possible, that is not possible'. I say: whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our own doubts"Major says that politics is changing and that parties have to adapt, yet bearing in mind the words of Enoch Powell, it don't seem like much has changed - only that the government message of 'this is not possible, that is not possible' grows louder and reaches even further into our personal lives.
On the subject of social engineering, let us consider the 'Big Society' - the latest brainwave (an oxymoron in this particular case) of Cameron. Were the people of this country to have true, independent, devolution of power they would be able to bring this about, of their own free will, without being so 'instructed' by a politician. In this context, a quote by Ludwig Van Moses is also quite pertinent:
"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hangs on the results. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the greatest historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."
Traditionalism: Is it a crime to hold certain values dear? Is it a crime to believe that one's country is being irrevocably damaged by unfettered immigration? Is it a crime to argue that those wishing to live in this country accept our traditions, beliefs and religion - that they do not actively campaign to change those things with a view to imposing an alien culture on us? Politicians of all three main parties have, in one way or another, been guilty of 'social engineering', in some cases blatantly so (Labour - open borders with a view to increasing the potential numbers who might support them). In the course of this 'social engineering' our politicians have gone out of their way to overlook and subjugate the proud history of the United Kingdom. Readers will forgive me, I trust, for once again quoting Enoch Powell, this time from a speech he gave to the Royal Society of St. George on 22nd April 1961:
"Tell us what it is that binds us together; show us the clue that leads through a thousand years; whisper to us the secret of this charmed life of England, that we in our time may know how to hold it fast."It would seem to me that increasing numbers of the electorate wish to be reminded of the 'ties that bind'; who are seeking that clue permeating a thousand years; who wish to return to that 'charmed life' and are intent on ensuring that others may learn how to hold it fast.